You just can't credibly invalidate fundamental bases of liberal democracy like not responding violently to speech by calling them 'fetishes'https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/873389598570815488 …
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Absolutely meaningless. We fetishise freedom of speech, human rights, equal rights and opportunities by defending them?
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Nor can you claim violence is justified because its consequence is frightening ppl out of speaking. That's the main argument against it.
1 reply 5 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I know I keep saying this but its incredible that *atheists* are trying to normalise violence against ppl expressing ideas found appalling.
3 replies 5 retweets 22 likes -
-
Replying to @TamaraBrouwer1
They're not hypocrites. They don't claim to support free speech for all ideas. What's incredible is that they don't realise they should.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Just when it concerns them. Free speech matters when religion needs to be critisized. Or sometimes, certain religions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TamaraBrouwer1
But they don't make the argument that they shld be allowed to criticise it coz free speech. They say they should coz they're right
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
And seem oblivious to the fact that others think they're right too & use same argument to persecute atheists & that atheists are minority
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
Trying to generalize atheists is like trying to generalize all of religion. We have no Creed, no holy text, no authorities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes. I have said this myself many times and am not doing this. The people arguing against Dan Arel et al are also mostly atheists.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.